ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. BY ERNST HAECKEL. INTRODUCTION. In April, 1905, I delivered three lectures in Berlin on the war over the idea of CVO- lution. They furnished the occasion for a number of violent attacks, directed not so much against the essential questions of our modern doctrine of evo- :tion as against myself, author of “The Rid(lle of the Universe,” in which I treated those great ques- tions from the standpoint of the monistic phi- losophy. To discredit monism my works were called the worthless, misleading. fabrications of a dilettante. &Iy slanderers were especially success- ful in their efforts to brand my embryologic expo- sitions and the illustrations accompanying them as reprehensible “falsifications of science.” What they seized upon as most welcome proofs were the These pages present a condensed translation of the answer made to his Christian slanderers by Prof. Ernst Haeckel of the University of Jena, Germany. The Eng- lishing of “Sandalion” was done for THE TRUTH SEEKER by Thomas Seltzer. “My Church Departure” is translated bf Thaddeus Burr Wakeman. 4 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. schematized figures of young human embryos and the embryos of other vertebrates, which I placed next to one another for comparison in a number of my works. The embryos of vertebrates, especially of mam- mals, are most important in proving the history of our descent. With the help of comparative an- atomy and paleontology, these embryos demonstrate to every unprejudiced observer our close kinship with the other mammals. Unfortunately the mys- terious province of comparative embryology is re- mote from the usual fields of culture. It requires very much study, thorough preparation in morph- ology, and careful discipline of one’s critical faculty. The opponents of the doctrine of evolution took ad- vantage of this fact. They charged me with wilful deception and falsifications, because 1 schematized the pictures of the embryos. By “schematize” I mean I omitted unessential adjuncts and strongly emphasized essential form relations. I also filled in deficiencies here and there by comparative syn- theses. These Jesuitic attacks recently obtained a very wide circulation and force me to enter into a dis- cussion of my so-called falsifications. I will take a concrete, ‘h’ hl lg y important example, the extreme- ly interesting sandalion by which I will show in what a despicable way the Jesuits themselves falsi- fied the truth. THE NATURAL SCIENCES AND RELIGIOUS CON- ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 5 CEPTIONS. The great struggle for truth, the strug- gle to attain knowledge, carried on at all times by thinking men, assumed a different character after the beginning of the twentieth century from the character it had ever before had. In the eighteenth century the free spirit of enlighten- ment had already been furthered by a great number of the most eminent thinkers. But it was not until the nineteenth century, the “cen- tury of natural science,” that it achieved the dominant position inconceivable in previous cul- tural epochs. The remarkable progress in the natural sciences must perforce have had profound influence on the philosophy of thinking men. The essential dif- ference between the clear dicta of reason in pure science and the nebulous imaginings of religion came out more sharply than ever before and mani- fested itself in many more ways. The positive facts actually acquired from modern natural science as well as our experiments have led us to the firm con- viction that the entire world proceeds according to “great, eternal iron laws based upon the very nature of things, and that the highest concept, God, lies in those laws themselves.” This is what we believe. On the opposite side are the adherents of the traditional churches. They maintain that a personal god created and rules the world, that he discovered the natural laws according to which the world’s development takes place. 6 ANSWER TO TEE JESUITS. The church militant very soon realized the dan- ger with which the monistic doctrine of evolution threatened its dominion over the minds of the peo- ple. It began an energetic campaign against Dar- winism, and in the latter third of the nineteenth century the struggle took a prominent place in the spiritual life of all circles. But by the end of the century I could definitely assert in my “Riddle of the Universe” (1899) that the monistic idea of evo- lution had triumphed, and the dualistic doctrine of creation had been completely defeated in all prov- inces of modern natural philosophy. Then the defeated church militant and the school of dualistic philosophy connected with it deemed it wise to change front and take unto them- selves the victorious doctrine of evolution. In this direction the Jesuits became extraordinarily active -for centuries they had been extremely successful in the art of falsifying the truth. I speak both of the Catholic Jesuits and the Protestant Jesuits. The various schools of the Catholic Jesuits, em- braced in the general designation of Thomists, en- deavored to revive the scholastic philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Competing with them were the orthodox schools of the Protestant Jesuits, who united in the Kepler League and misused the name of the great astronomer Johann Kepler to veil their true aim. The general object of both these Christian leagues is the subjugation of rational science to the tradi- ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 7 tional dogmas of the Christian faith. They now believe they will reach their goal most surely if they preach the harmony of the two contradictory philosophies, the “creation by evolution.” A good means seems to them to be the overthrow of the Monist League, founded in 1905, which has made it its duty to develop and propagate the idea of monism. Though the Jesuits of both confessions went at the zealous pursuit of their goal by undauntedly practicing the known frauds of Jesuitism and per- petrating the riskiest falsifications in science, they adopted the genuinely Jesuitic tactics of charging others with their own crimes. They concealed their own deceptions by accusing the upholders of man ism, myself in especial, with conscienceless distor- tions of the truth. But they are very careful not to take a definite stand against the great principles in which they differ from me. They direct their attacks against a few shortcomings in my works- some assumptions and daring hypotheses, or figures illustrating my popular works, which have not been thoroughly elaborated or are schematized. THE TIIOMISTS AND KEPLERISTS. The remark- able history of the Society of Jesuits and their in- fluence upon world history are well known. The spirit of lying and hypocrisy at the bottom of their whole system, their main principle, “the end jus- tifies the means,” have become a byword. Any transgression, any crime is permitted if it serves 8 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. the highest end. “Everything for the greater glory of God” (Owwiu in majorem Dei gloriam). The Society of Jesuits obtained its greatest influence through the three significant declarations of war against reason by which Pius IX. tried to get the Christian world to bow before his almighty sceptre. These were the dogma of immaculate conception ( 1834)) the encyclical and the syllabus ( 1864)) an absolute condemnation of modern civilization and culture, and the dogma of the pope’s infallibility (1870). In accepting these dogmas, these deeds of religious violence, modern Catholicism identified itself completely with Jesuitism. R. H. France in 1904 very happily characterized Jesuitic science. He called it a serious menace, and was quite right in doing so because “it systematical- ly smuggles the Jesuitic spirit into science, because, as a result, it distorts all problems and the solu- tion to them, and because it skilfully turns upside- down the very principle of science.” But this is not all The worst danger resides in the fact that we are not sufficiently conscious of our danger. The general public and even scientists fall right into the cleverly prepared trap and believe there is such a thing as a Jesuitic science, the results cf which may be taken seriously. All this is equally true of the Keplerists. Their “Christian science” is just as false as the “Jesuitic science.” Both pursue the same end, the amal- gamation of the doctrine of the Christian faith with ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 9 the results of modern science, in other words, the subjection of science to Christian teachings. Numerous Catholic associations, with more or less distinct shades of difference between them, may, in a wide sense, be included in the name Thomist. ERICH WASMANN. The Jesuit father Erich Was- mann is the most important personality among the numerous learned Jesuits who are at present fight- ing for the Christian belief in revelation and against the monistic natural philosophy. He is distin- guished for a wide knowledge of zoology, for his brilliant oratory, and his skill at fooling people by clever dialectics. Through acute study of the life and form of in- sects, especially of ants and ant guests, Wasmann won a reputation as a learned entomologist. 3:at the scientific zoology of modern times makes very different demands upon the student. It requires years of thorough study in comparative anatomy and ontogeny, in paleontology and physiology. A zoologist who has chosen the study of vertebrates for his specialty must know medicine well, for the simple reason that the human organism is in every way better known to us than that of any other ani- mal. As soon as Wasmann leaves the narrower sphere of his entomology and enters upon this province, his zoologic knowledge reveals astound ing deficiencies. By his scientific studies. combined with fanatic religious zeal Wasmann won a leading position 10 ANSVER TO THE JESUITS. among the Thomists, such as Dennert has among the Keplerists. Both are clever and indefatigable in their agitation for the “Christian natural sciences,” both are unscrupulous in the choice of their means, both are invincible when an attempt is made to re- fute their blind belief with the logic of reason. In my lectures in Berlin in 1905 I entered i:lto a detailed criticism of Wasmann’s chief work deal- ing with the great general problem of the modern natural philosophy, Die nzoderne Biologic und die ~~~t~~ickelz~ngslch~e. Two years later Wasmann made his reply in three lectures at Berlin, which be- came of general interest because they were the im- mediate occasion for an open scientific battle. Twelve speakers opposed Wasmann, and thoroughly contro- verted him. Nevertheless the entire ultramontane press celebrated his public defeat as a brilliant victory. Professor Ludwig Plate drew the following con- clusions from the debate: “That genuine scientific research is impossible within the province of the ultramontane church ; that the sharp, irreconcilable contrast between science and the orthodox Chris- tian religion came out very clearly at the discus- sion ; that even scientific investigators are well aware of the limitations of their knowledge, and that there are ultimate questions to which no answer can be found.” All these objections to the mystic falsification of the doctrine of evolution by Erich Wasmann as the ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 11 type of the Thomist, apply equally to the sophistical misrepresentation of genetics by Eberhard Dennert, founder of the Kepler League. Two years later Wasmann made a vain attempt to rescue “Catholic natural science” and thereby destroy monism. He delivered three lectures at Innsbruck, which differed from his Berlin lectures only in that they contained still more violent attacks against me personally, against my anthropogeny, and against monism. THE KEPLER LEAGUE. The younger brother of the Catholic Thomist League, the new Protestant Kepler League, was founded in November, 1907, by one of the most zealous reoresentatives of “Christian Natural Science,” Dr. Eberhard Den- nert, principal of a Protestant school. The aim of the League was set forth in his first pamphlet-“to further the knowledge of natural science among the peopIe at large. The aim also is to carry on the fight of natural science against monism.” That the latter was the chief object of the League is shown by the circumstances preceding the forma- tion of the League and its entire la’ter attitude. In the very first volume of the League’s publications Dennert said : “It is the religious and moral dan- gers with which monism threatens the life of the entire people that led to the formation of the League.” In the preface to the same volume he expressly states : “The members of the Kepler League stand on the ground of theism.” In many 12 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. other passages of his numerous works he emphasizes the very Christian character of his mystic, dualis- tic philosophy. The work of his that most clearly shows the purpose of his ceaseless agitation is Der Darwkismus un’d seine Einfluss aud die heutige Vollzsbewegumg (Darwinism and its Influence upon the Modern Popular Movement). In it we find definitely formulated the “teachings of the Chris- tian philosophy.” We learn that: 1. “The world is limited by time and was created by an eternal per- sonal God. 2. The method according to which God created the world has not been revealed to us, nor has it anything to do with the case ( ?). 3. God made man the crown of creation by putting his spirit into mortal matter and giving man moral liberty. 4. God guides and rules this world accord- ing to immutable natural laws made by him. It is conceivable and therefore possible (!) that God, their creator and lord, can break those laws.” There are six more of these m the same spirit, and the entire ten constitute the content of the Kep ler catechism, by which Dennert as the “scientific director” of the Kepler League would give its Chris- tian philosophy a firm foundation. Every unprejudiced thinker instantly perceives that the catechism does not rest upon the firm foundation of scientific experience, but upon mystic revelation, the very opposite pole of scientific ex- perience. LEAGUE OF FALSIFIERS. In my statement of De- ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 13 cember 24, 1908, “Falsifications of Science,” occa- sioned by the severe attacks of Brass and Tartiiffe, I showed up in their true colors the Jesuitic accusa- tions of my opponents. I called the Kepler League a league of scientific falsifiers. I might have said the same of the Catholic Thomist League, be- cause their methods and aims are absolutely similar. The Keplerists indignantly denied the charge and dubbed it a “monstrosity.” I ask the gentlemen: “Is it no monstrosity of the leading authors of the Kepler League, acting upon the false charges of Dr. Brass, to call me in numerous articles and pamphlets a scientific liar and falsifier of science?” That is, call a scientist a falsifier of science who for half a century at a personal sacrifice pursued one goal, to learn the truth in nature, and by the help of its teachings free all thinking men from the yoke of superstition. As a matter of ,fact, it is both Jesuitical leagues who have falsified the whole idea of the cosmos by their endeavor to amalgamate the monistic results of modern natural science with the mystic, dual- istic dogmas of the miracle-believing church. Dr. Rudolf Hoernes, professor of paleontology and geology at Graz, said in one of his articles: “The Keplerists are not concerned to free science or serve truth. All they care about is to establish firmly the temporal dominion of the church, for which end they are willing to adopt any means.” In another article, speaking of my alleged falsify- 14 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. cations of pictures of embryos, he writes: “The truth is, the leaders of the Kepler League want to do the utmost damage to the theory of evolution by discrediting one of its most prominent representa- tives. At least they want to prevent to the greatest possible extent the dissemination among lay per- sons of a teaching that interferes with their phi- losophy. And it is in disseminating that teaching among lay persons that Haeckel performed special services.” THE JESUITIC PRESS. The severe warfare I have been forced to carry on for forty years with the clerical and conservative press has enriched me with noteworthy experiences of its Jesuitical tactics and practices. In recent years it took the occasion of the embryo dispute to say particularly brutal and perfidious things. I therefore feel that here is the place to show up its conduct. Dr. Arnold Brass wrote two polemical pamphlets, Wahvhcit (1906) and Affenproblem (19OS), which were immediately greeted with joy by all the enemies of intellectual progress and enlightenment. Correspondents to the reactionary press gave them the widest publicity. Hundreds of important and minor papers forthwith published Brass’s false charge to the whole world. To none of them did it occur to find out the real truth about these “over- whelming” accusations or refer them to competent trained men. And when scientifically trained men of their own accord made statements in rebuttal, ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 15 as they did in severa places, the clerical and con- servative press ignored them. Dr. Brass’s over- whelming charges were repeated with visible glee. It is highly regrettable that a large part of the Liberal press was duped by these Jesuitical tactics. Many unbiased papers lent credence to the charges and gave them wider currency. The chief cause of this is the general ignorance of the biologic facts involved in the embryo dispute. It was very sly in Dr. I3rass to make his attack in a dark spot re- mote from the general fields of culture and ofiering peculiar difficulties even to the trained specialist. An example of the extent to which the Liberal press was deceived is offered by the case of “Tartiiffe,” which aroused much comment. PROFESSOR T.\RTUFFE. After the appearance in 1908 of Dr. Arnold Brass’s &s AfSc~p~-oblcnz, the .4llgcmcii2e Zcitwag of Munich published an anonymous article upon it. This anonymous arti- cl< was the direct occasion of my reply of Decem- ber 24th, and it produced a whole series of disputes. The main point about the “Tartiiffe” article (as I had to call it !) is that the anonymous Professor X takes Dr. l&-ass’s “extraordinarily severe charges” as proved and-unwillingly !-deduces : “That they not only destroy the scientific reputa- tion of a man who, despite some slips, was held in high repute among wide circles, but they also ex- pose a positive ~tuill ~rpon GCYUZ~Escience ( !).” The rest of the article and the author’s appeal to 16 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. the opinion of the German embryologists were so perfidious, so Jesuitical, that I felt I was forced to my reply of December 24th. Besides, I had another motive, occasioned by the action of the Allgemeine Zeitung. The editors sent me the issue containing the “Tartiiffe article” with a characteristic letter, in which they offer me their columns for a short reply to the article, which, they said, they had printed with profound regret though they had felt com- pelled to do so because it came from a source raised high above doubt both as to scientific knowledge and loyalty. Of course, I did not accept the Aligemeine Zeitung’s offer, but sent my reply to the Berlin Volkszeitung, the editor of which is one of the few liberal newspaper heads who have worked for the advancement and propagation of the doctrine of evolution. THE FALSIFICATIONS OF ARNOLD BRASS. Dr. Arnold Brass provides the most plentiful source upon which the Jesuitic press has been drawing for some years to make charges against me of falsify- ing illustrations. Much as I dislike to touch upon the personal character of my opponents, I am com- pelled to do so in this case. For Brass is consider- ed the star witness in the great “embryo suit,” and it is upon his authority that the numerous charges of falsification are brought against me. He is dis- tinguished from most of the other scientists in the Kepler League by his knowledge of zoology, anthro- ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 17 pology, comparative anatomy and ontogeny. But he misuses his knowledge to the utmost in order to throw a veil over the truth, or, as he says, to ad- vance the cause of truth. The whole clerical press, therefore, and especially the Keplerist papers, honor him as a St. George who killed the dragon of un- belief, monism. In the summer of 1906 Brass wrote a blooklet of ninety-six pages entitled Ernst Haeckel als Biologe und die Wahrheit. I shall refer to it as Wahrheit. It contains sharp attacks upon my monistic natural philosophy, especially as set forth in my “Ridd!e of the Universe,” and is full of perversions and ab- solute untruths. At the time I ignored his charges, as I did numerous other works against the “Riddle of the Universe.” It was two years later that I was compelled to come out against Brass. In an address delivered in Berlin at a meeting of the Christian Socialists (April 1, 1908) he attacked me severely for having falsified the pictures of embryos. “The speaker,” he said, “can make these charges from accurate knowledge directly acquired, since he himself made the true drawings for Haeckel.” Not a -mrd of this is true! The base calumny necessitated my setting the matter right, and led me to write my article of December 24, 1908. Brass’s answer to my article was his Affenproblem, the subtitle to which is “Professor Ernst Haeckel, his falsifications of science and its defense by German anatomists and zoologists.” 18 ANSWEIl TO THE JESUITS. Dr. Brass is very active as the official lecturer of the Kepler League. In an authentic communica- tion from the League he is recommended, and the following statement is made : “Dr. Brass’s pay is guaranteed by the League.” This statement is im- portant, for observe what Brass himself said in the same year, 1909: “Besides, I am free. Nobody commissions me $0 lecture, etc. I am not the lec- turer of the Kepler League, nor do I draw my salary or any pay whatsoever from that body.” There you have that highly lauded Christian love of truth of the pious Keplcrists! It would take 3. huge volume to correct the mis- statements, false deductions, and positive lies in Dr. Brass’s lectures ant1 writings. I shall limit myself to a critical discussion of 3 few points that can easily be made clear to every honorable person with some insight. Sk&tom of Ahropoid Apes. Few observa- tions are so directly convincing of the close kinship of man ant1 the anthropoid ape as a critical com- parison of the skeletons. It was a very happy idea of the English genius Thomas IIuxley to place pic- tures of the skeletons of man and the four sur- viving anthropoid apes on the front page of his “Man’s Place in Nature.” I copied the pictures in my “Anthropogeny.” Later in my published ad- dresses delivered in Berlin on the war about the idea of evolution, I used pictures of the same five skeletons, but from specimens in my own collection.